You are on page 1of 8

Available online at: http://journal.unila.ac.id/index.php/tropicalsoil J Trop Soils, Vol. 17, No.

3, 2012: 275-282 DOI: 10.5400/jts.2012.17.3.275

275

Physical Feasibility Study of Agroforestry Farm Systems to Support Sustainable Agriculture in Konaweha Sub Watershed of Southeast Sulawesi
Sitti Marwah
Department of Forestry, Agriculture Faculty Haluoleo University, Kendari Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, e-mail: siti.marwah@ymail.com Received 6 August 2011 / accepted 13 August 2012

ABSTRACT
The farming systems in Konaweha watershed are mostly mixed garden that are partly managed intensively as well as traditionally. The objectives of this research were to identify and classify agroforestry systems that were practiced by farmers, to study the effect of the agroforestry systems on soil properties, hydrological indicators, and erosion, as well as to analyze farm management feasibility of agroforestry systems to establish sustainable agriculture system. The study was carried out in Konaweha watershed, Southeast Sulawesi. The results indicated that agroforestry systems in this area were devided into four types i.e. sylvopastoral-perennial crops with pasture, agrosylvicultural-perennial crops, agrosylvicultural-multystrata systems, and sylvopastoral-multystrata systems. The four types of agroforestry systems significantly increased the soil aggregate stability, soil porosity at 30 cm in depth, organic matter, soil organic carbon, and microorganisms population. In addition, the agroforestry had decreased runoff and erosion significantly. Therefore, the erosion rate from the four types of agroforestry system was below the value of tolerated soil loss (TSL), except that of agrosylvicultural-perennial crops with an elevation of > 30%. The best quality of soil and environment was found at sylvopastoral-multystrata systems. Keywords: Agroforestry, erosion, soil properties, sustainable agriculture

INTRODUCTION The increasing of population in some developing countries, including Indonesia, is quite high, and this is unavoidably and triggers the need for more food and agricultural land. In addition, the dynamics of development leads to a competition in land use, resulting in the use of dry lands on sloping areas by farmers without involving conservation that measures appropriate for the biophysical conditions of tropical regions. These lands become prone to erosion, making them critical and degraded. In Indonesia, the total area of critical land is ± 35 million ha, consisting of ± 21 million ha outside the forest area and ± 14 million ha in the forest (Sinukaban 2001). Obviously, this condition has been getting worse due to the forest conversion activities of around 20 million ha since 1989, from an average harvest increase of 1.7 million ha by the year 2000 (Holmes 2002) to 1.87 ha per year in 2002-2004 (FAO 2005). In Southeast Sulawesi, there is ± 242,000 ha of critical land, consisting of

J Trop Soils, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2012: 275-282  ISSN 0852-257X

± 188,000 ha outside the forest area and ± 54,000 ha in the forest area. A number of studies have shown that the conversion will reduce the quality of the soil, but it will rise again by temporarily abandoning it (letting reeds grow) or by applying a cacao agroforestry system (Handayani 2001; Anas et al. 2005, Murtilaksono et al. 2005). In addition, agroforestry systems have the potential as soil and water conservation measures, ensuring the sustainability of such production as food, fuel, fodder and timber products, especially from marginal and degraded lands (Narain and Grewal 1994, Nair 1989a and 1989b, Chundawat and Gautam 1993). In the sub-watershed of Konaweha, covering an area of 270,608 ha, there is a dryland agriculture in form of mixed farms occupaying an area of ± 11,154 ha in 2004 (Sub Balai RLKT Sampara 2007), wher e farmers generally carry out far ming diversification by planting more than one type of commodities to increase land productivity. In addition, there is a traditional form of land management called forest plantation. Both forms of land management are forms of agroforestry system that combines economic, ecological and social functions so-called

Types of agroforestry obtained from the identification result as treatment were symbolized by Tl. infiltration capacity. and K3 so that there were 15 observation plots in all. each of which consisted of three classes of slope steepness: 2%. but the type of agroforestry which was the most widely cultivated by farmers is sylvopastoral-perennial crops with pasture (Tl). Determination Method of Observation Plot The determination of observation location was made by purposive sampling based on the map of land use. and tolerable soil erosion (TSL). respectively at depths of 0-30 cm. Nair 1990). shrubs and grasses and /or livestock. erosion and hydrological indicators in agroforestry systems. Table 1 shows that the biggest type of agroforestry was Sylvopastoral-multystrata systems (T4). To make sure the sustainable use of land was taken into account. Southeast Sulawesi from July 2009 to June 2010. T2. Table 1. size. Observation of hydrological indicators included surface runoff. The measurement of erosion and surface runoff was conducted by a small plot method (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). C-organic. 12% and 30% as a group symbolized by KI. and (2) commodity food crops in form of trees. porosity.276 S Marwah: Physical Feasibility Study of Agroforestry Farm System “safety net” for rural households (Brodbeck et al. This study aimed: 1) to identify and classify the types of agroforestry in the sub watershed of Konaweha based on the structure and composition of their constituent components. Observation plots were made based on the pattern of Group Randomized Design. fruit and forestry plants. and 3) to analyze the physical feasibility of farming management by farmers. Table 2 shows that type of Tl was a type of agroforestry belonging to sylvopastoral. consisting of plantation plants and industrial crops. the selection of land use units of mixed farms and natural forests that included subdistricts and villages. Next. magnitude of actual erosion. 2) to review soil characteristics. 2003). and number of farmers in each type of agroforestry in Sub-Watershed of Konaweha in 2010. K2. and topography of Konaweha Subwatershed. Kendari. The components in the region were grouped into: (1) commodity of annual crops (perennial crop). the amount of erosion should be less than or equal to TSL. there were several types of agroforestry systems in Sub-watershed of Konaweha. Parameters of physical. T4 and forest (control) was symbolized by T5. soil. organic matter. TSL was determined by the equation of Wood and Dent (1983 cited by Hardjowigeno 2001). soil profile permeability. The composition of the constituent type of each type of agroforestry is presented in Table 2. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Characteristics of Agroforestry Systems Based on the structure or their constituent components. The climate element observed was rainfall (rainfall amount and monthly rainy days). where there were majority of farmers cultivating mixed farms of agroforestry patterns. Type. chemical and biological soil properties observed were soil volume weight. According to a classification approach (Huxley 1986 in Young 1997. Types of Agroforestry Sylvopastoral-perennial crops with pasture Agrosylvicultural-perennial crops Agrosylvicultural-multystrata systems Sylvopastoral-multystrata systems Symbol Tl T2 T3 T4 Area (ha) 252 20 240 364 Number of farmers (FH) 336 25 184 240 . index of soil aggregate stability. Method of Data Collection Soil sampling was taken including undisturbed soil samples using a ring sample at depths of 0-30 and > 30 cm. T3. MATERIALS AND METHODS Time and Location The research was conducted in the SubWatershed of Konaweha Regency. pH and soil microorganisms. basically agroforestry systems implemented by farmers in the research location had 4 (four) types as presented in detail in Table 1. while the composite soil samples and undisturbed aggregate soil samples were taken.

similar to T3 type. and kedondong (Spondias pinnata) and forestry plant commodities: sengon (Paraserienthes falcata) and teak (Tectona grandis). fruits and forestry plants were generally cultivated by subsistence farmers in mix irregularly and partially. Mg: mango. papaya ( Carica papaya ) and soursop. plant fruits: rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum). namely: fruit trees such as rambutan. coconut and cashew nut). and sago as well as wood products such as teak and bitti (Vitex sp. Jr: sweet orange. cloves. tb: bench terrace. Ld:pepper. In this type of commodity and industrial crops. Dmk: damar mata kucing. pepper. coconut ( Cocos nucifera ). and jackfruit (Arthocarpus Integra). coffee. Composition of constituent species of each type of agroforestry and forest in the sub watershed of Konaweha in 2010. tg: gulud terrace. walnut (Aleurites moluccana). substituting for rice for the native people. Kl: coconut. The T3 type had the typical characteristics of multystrata system (agroforests) that were traditionally managed. durian (Durio zybethinus). Jt: teak. No. pepper and cloves. Commodity of forestry crops planted was the types of plants that could be harvested in form of fruit or other yields such as breadfruit. especially cocoa. banana. sweet orange (Citrus sinensis). . 2012: 275-282 277 Table 2. Da: dao. jackfruit. Pn: pinang. Cpk: cempaka. Jm: cashew nut. but in this type there was feed crops and cattle. mango (Mangifera indica). Klw: kayu lawang. consisting of plantations and industrial commodities: cocoa (Theobroma cacao). Py: papaya. cloves. In the meantime. Ka : kayu angin. 17. Kbt: kayu bitti. coffee (Arabic coffee). While fruit was extra income. Gm: gamal. Ls: langsat. and cashew (Anacardium occidentale). durian. The constituent components consisted of commodities of plantation plants and industrial crops such as cocoa. coconut. Km: walnut. Sgn: sengon. Kbs: kayu besi. Vol. and feed crops (Gamal and grass) and cows as livestock. Ck: clove. sago plants were specifically used for staple food. Ghr: gaharu. The T2 type was one of the agroforestry systems belonging to type agrosylvicultaral with a combination of plants that consisted of two types of commodities. 3. Dr: durian. Sg: sago. Sp: cow characterized by the composition of the constituent commodities. sweet orange. rp: grass. Sr: soursop. and commodity of fruit crops: rambutan. Kp: coffe. langsat (Lansium domesticum ). Bitti wood is an indigenous plant that grows naturally. cattle commodity was mainly used to meet the educational needs and socio-cultural commodities. durian. Ps: banana. An:seedling. Production of fruit trees was used to meet the daily basic needs of farmers while the types of forest plants were for long-term investment goals. Jth: teak forest. clove ( Syzygium aromaticum ). This type was dominated by plantation crops and industrial commodities whose production was for commercial purposes. Agroforestry type and forest T1 Plot K1T1 K2T1 K3T1 K1T2 K2T2 K3T2 K1T3 K2T3 K3T3 K1T4 K2T4 K3T4 K1T5 K2T5 K3T5 Composition of constituent species and conservation practice Kk+Ld+Ck+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Mg+Nk+Gm+rp+Sp Kk+Ld+Ck+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Mg+Nk+Gm+rp+Sp Kk+Ld+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Mg+Nk+Gm+rp+Sp+tb Rb+Jr+Mg+Dr+Nk+Ps+Kd+Sgn+Jt+rp Rb+Jr+Dr+Mg+Nk+Ps+Kd+Sgn+Jt+rp Rb+Jr+Dr+Mg+Nk+Ps+Kd+Sgn+rp+tb Kk+Ld+Kp+Ck+Kl+Rb+Dr+Ls+Mg+Py+Sk+Km+Jt+Gm+rp Kk+Kp+Ck+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Ls+Mg+Sr+Sk+Km+Jt+Sg+rp Kk+Ld+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Mg+Ls+Kd+Km+Sgn+Jt+Kbt+Gm+rp Kk+Kp+Ck+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Ls+Mg+Km+Jt+rp+Sp Kk+Kp+Ck+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Ls+Mg+Km+Jt+Pn+rp Kk+Kp+Ck+Kl+Jm+Rb+Dr+Ls+Mg+Km+Jt+Pn++Sg+rp+Sp+tg Dm+Jt+Kbs+Klp+Klw+Dmk+Cpk+Kbt+Ka+Da+Pli+Ghr+Jth+An+rp Dm+Jt+Kbs+Klp+Klw+Dmk+Cpk+Kbt+Ka+Da+Pli+Ghr+Jth+An+rp Dm+Jt+Kbs+Klp+Klw+Dmk+Cpk+Kbt+Ka+Da+Pli+Ghr+Jth+An+rp T2 T3 T4 T5 Kk: cocoa. Pli: pulai. Sk: breadfruit. Klp: kalapi. Dm: damar. The plant production was generally used to meet daily basic needs. pepper ( Piper ningrum ). banana (Musa paradisiaca). making it categorized into type sylvopastoral. mango. The constituent components of this type consisted of commodities and industrial crops (cocoa. Kd: kedondong. Rb: rambutan. Nk: jackfruit.). mango. The T4 type had a typical vegetation of agroforest or multystrata system characteristics.J Trop Soils.

The averages of soil volume weight.3 b 173.91 a 0. porosity depth of 0-30 cm. especially fungi with their long hifa. except that of T2 type at the test level of LSD0.51 a 4. ).01 Index of aggregate stability Soil porosity Depth (cm) 0-30 >30 (%) 45. bitti (Vitex sp.88 a 38. clove. Pulai (Alsionia spp. A soil depth porosity of > 30 cm in Table 3 shows the highest value in T2 type and did not differ significantly from T4 type and forests (T5) but differed from T1 and T3 type in the test level of LSD0. Table 3 shows that the highest aggregate stability index was in T4 type and did not differ significantly compared to the other types and forests.50 bc 2.20 a 1.).33 a 6.13 a 42. pinang (Pinanga kuhlii).67 bc 41. ironwood (Chaetocarpus sp. Value of soil volume weight.35 Soil pH Total of soil micro organism ( × 107 ) (CFU g-1) 1.50 b 1.90 a 1.29 a 43.67 ab 53. social and cultural needs. but it were differed in the index of aggregate stability and porosity of the soil depth > 30 cm.9 c 0.10 a 1.01 a 0. index of aggregate stability. there was a high content of organic matter and soil microorganism.86 a 43. Cempaka (Elmerrittia sp . sago.).53 Soil organic carbon (%) 1. Cattles were complementary commodity was used to meet the educational. Macro. grass feed and cattle.6 (g cm ) 0.17 a 1.17 a 0.20 a 0. Soil volume weight Depth (cm) 0-30 >30 -3 Agroforestry Type and Forest T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 LSD 0.06 c 1. In line with the index of aggregate stability. Macro fauna contributes directly to the change of the origin of the material into smaller materials. Soil Characteristics Soil properties in agroforestry systems showed no significant difference between the types of agroforestry concerning of soil volume weight. organic matter.48 a 4. The adhesion mechanism by soil microorganisms. coffee and fruit trees such as langsat. and the material is further reformed by soil microorganisms into soil organic matter which is the primary adhesion of soil particles (Boyle et al . .97 a 1.82 Soil organic matter (%) 2.45 a Note: Values in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to LSD test 5% or 1%.83 a 48. This was also true for soil organic materials. Table 3. The dominant commodities to meet the daily needs of local farmers were cocoa. The types of vegetation found included: damar (Agathis spp. dao ( Dao dracontomelon ). gaharu ( Aquillaria malaccensis ).05. The forest (T5) used as a control was a secondary natural forest. soil porosity. soil C-organic and soil microorganisms in a test level of F0.).90 c 2.61 ab 1. pH.05.278 S Marwah: Physical Feasibility Study of Agroforestry Farm System fruit commodities (langsat.03 a 1.83 c 49.50 ab 55. issueing exudate in the form of a polysaccharide trapping soil particles into stable micro aggregates (Tisdall and Oades 1982). forests had relatively more macropores and higher infiltration rate compared to monoculture coffee plantations. According to Suprayogo et al. This was equally true with T4 type which had a population density of tall trees like durian. and this type consisted of a combination of fruit trees and forest trees whose roots spread well from the surface to at a certain depth like in the forest. and teak ( Tectona grandis).46 a 4. and soil pH at a test level of F0. porosity. durian and rambutan and forestry crops of walnut and sago.05 LSD 0.90 a 1. (2004).3 a 19. index of soil aggregate stability. This was due to the land cover impact in this type which could create the conditions for optimum physical soil properties for the development of macro fauna and soil microorganisms.). teak forests (Nauclea spp. damar mata kucing (Shorea lamellata). 1989).9 c 6. teak. soil organic matter.72 a 39. langsat and teak. pH and total soil microorganisms per type of agroforestry are presented in Table 3.01.53 4.52 a 4.77 b 4. durian.and microorganisms are very instrumental in the formation of soil organic matter.05.) lawang.88 bc 51.67 bc 47.7 c 66.00 c 45.26 a 44. rambutan and mango).31c 1. and total soil microorganisms in each type of agroforestry and forest.10 bc 1. This was caused by the influence of tree roots which were more involved.70 a 3. and forestry crops: candlenut.

. but there was no significant difference compared to the other types as well as the forest (T5) as the control.11%) and BV (1.03 a 5. According to Van Noordwijk et al. climate and vegetation. Vol.3 a 386. Indicators of Hydrology and Erosion Parameters of hydrology (surface runoff and infiltration capacity) and erosion had a significant difference in this study. permeability profile and soil erosion in agroforestry systems and forests in 2010. In addition.40 b 7.8 a 426. This condition made it easier for the rainwater to flow into the deeper soil layers and to flow laterally as well. they had been proven to reduce runoff and erosion.0 Note: Values in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to LSD test 5% or 1%.05 : LSD0.27 a 5. plantations and industrial but also fruit trees. Table 4 shows that the lowest surface runoff was found in sylvopastoral multystrata system (T4) and did not differ significantly from forest (T5). Permeability profile showed no significant difference among the types of agrofor estry. infiltration capacity. In line with the above description. It was allegedly caused by the influence of dense land cover. porosity. Soil organic matter and C-organic were the highest in T4 type.5 a 318. water absorption by trees during rain occurrences would affect the amount of water that could be saved from the next rain occurrence.01. permeability profile and soil erosion in agroforestry system are presented in Table 4.01. so that the soil macroporosity on forest lands was better maintained than that in monoculture coffee plantations. 17.68%) was moderate.01 : Surface Runoff runoff (mm) 403.50 ab 10. the average moisture content (48. 3. In line with the above.J Trop Soils. infiltr ation capacity and permeability profiles were the highest in T4 type. Forest soils and agroforestry had a high infiltration rate and relatively large macroporosity in line with the high biological activity of soil and root turnover. and (c) earthworms that lived in the forest lands were bigger than those in monoculture coffee plantations (Hairiah et al.93 Permeability Profile profil (cm hr-1) 3.268) which was the highest. Similarly. and permeability were lower than those in the forests. during the dry season tree roots tend to grow deeper into the soil to absorb water.67 ab 8.30 a 4. and forest was no exception. but all types were lower than the forest type and significantly different at the test level of LSD0.8 Infiltration capacity (cm hr-1) 5. and density of vegetation Table 4. this type of erosion had the lowest erosion but there was no significant difference compared to the other types or forests. affecting the next the process of infiltration and surface runoff. (b) plant canopies covered the ground. On the contrary.3 b 14. The increase in soil organic matter and the high accumulation of soil carbon varied greatly depending on soil conditions. This was possible because in the forests and agroforestry there are trees with long root systems which grow well in the soil with greater root volumes. This conditions resulted in the high content of soil organic matters and the low rate of crust formation on the soil surface.7 g ml-1 ) was the highest. composition.70 a Erosion (Mg ha-1) 28.7 b 66. the slope steepness was between 2% and 30% (Table 5). In the mixed plantation areas.3 a 30.1 b 256. but had a significant difference compared to the other types of agroforestry in the test level of LSD0. so that with the canopy of more than two layers and the coverage of thick grass and litter on the soil surface. Surface runoff.0 a 17. Type. land cover by trees in all their forms could affect the flow of water. 2012: 275-282 279 In addition. the surface runoff could be inhibited. This was because (a) forests had thick litter layers. Agroforestry type and forest T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 LSD0.10 a 2. Likewise. 2004 ). not only forest plants. 19%) and porosity (44.53 b 6.3 a 26. (2004). The values of surface runoff. No. Setiowaty (2007) reported that the use of forest land in Kreo watershed of Central Java had a value of organic matter (BO of 5.16 g ml-1 ) and soil permeability (17. while the values of BO. infiltration capacity. The highest total of soil microorganisms was in T4 type and was different from the other three types. while the value of the water content (44.33 a 6.2 ab 7.

canopy layer.4 36.7 27. agroforestry type T4 provided the lowest CRO compared to other agroforestry types because the land cover that had a multistara canopy directly affected the potential energy of falling rainwater and the amount of potential interception.1 34. low erosion and RO (Table 4).0 34.534.21 0.0 42.4 36. Coefficient of runoff each agroforestry type and Forest periode 2009 – 2010.5 35. soil moisture. organic materials and the total micr oorganism had a greater effect on the improvement of soil physical properties. The properties played an important role in soil porosity and aggregate stability which can lead to high infiltration capacity. CRO and low soil erosion on forests and mixed farms (agroforestry).17) which was the lowest compared to all types of agroforestry.. the depth of ground water.9 18.3 mm. Actual erosion and TSL in any type of agroforestry and slope steepness in 2009 . biological activity. T4 (0. In addition. the factors that generally affect infiltration are soil texture. determine the water volume entering the ground. Erosion causes the loss of the upper layer of soil that is fertile and functions as a medium for plant growth.7 7.5 a 318. T3 (0. RO. an early indication of land degradation can be seen if the actual amount of erosion is greater than tolerable erosion (TSL).7 8.4 35.4 36.7 35. followed by T1 (0. and soil permeability.3* 35.6 16. the soil infiltration capacity and turnover of different roots. (2011) also reported that hydrologic indicators were high soil infiltration capacity and permeability.6 43. directly or indirectly. Furthermore.26).25).28). Agroforestry type and forest T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Average of surface runoff (mm) 403.3 26.…………………………… Mg ha yr ………………………….3 40.7 b Coefficient of runoff 0.25 0.6 32. The hydrologic indicators.21) and T5 (0. Total of rainfall causes surface runoff: 1. Table 5 shows that the average run-off coefficient (CRO) of agroforestry types was the highest at T2 (0.26 0.8 Note: * Erosion > TSL.4 11. the volume of litter / organic matter on the soil surface. .6 34.17 Note: Total of rainfall 2009 – 2010: 2. mass of soil volume. reducing the ability of soil to absorb and hold water. Coefficient of runoff (CRO) is the amount of runoff to the total rainfall in land cover conditions of each type of agroforestry and forests. Erosion which occurred in every type and slope steepness. TSL: Tolerable Soil Loss.4 35. Types of agroforestry T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Erosion K1 TSL Erosion K2 -1 -1 TSL Erosion K3 TSL ….1 16. vegetation type.443 mm. were still below TSL.2010 are presented in Table 6. were determined by the characteristics of the land such as percentage of land cover and potential interception. TSL is the highest erosion rate that can still be tolerated to preserve an adequate depth of soil for plant growth which enables the achievement of high productivity in a sustainable manner. potential interception and higher infiltration capacity compared to all types agrofoerstry. The discrepancies of CRO of each type of agroforestry and forest were due to the density of vegetation. However. Therefore.4 5. and low CRO (Table 5).2 22.8 a 426. amount and thickness of litter.6 36. T5 was forest land with CRO (0. The research result by Alwi (2012) and Alwi et al. except agrosylvicultural-p (T2) at a Table 6. root volume and root turnover. The role of vegetation in water infiltration is to increase the organic matter content. CRO of each agroforestry and forest type is shown in Table 5.1 b 256. This was due to the high density of forest plants/plant height.280 S Marwah: Physical Feasibility Study of Agroforestry Farm System Table 5.…… 21.0 17.3 a 386. porosity and high soil organic matter content.28 0. Erosion and tolerable soil loss in agroforestry systems in 2010.17).4 40. and soil biota that support the process of infiltration.4 38. when compared with TSL.

Proceedings International Symposium “The Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins: Linking Ecological. Anas I. In addition. so it is likely to have only one or two layers of canopy. 90 p. Arsyad (2000) also suggested that a good ground cover of vegetation such as grasses or thick jungle will eliminate the influence of rainfall and topography on erosion. W Lorenz. thus reducing the rate of erosion. However. S Salahuddin and H Pawitan . Study on the dynamic of land use impact in wanggu watershed to sedimentation to kendari bay in South East Sulawesi. especially in upland watersheds. and can reduce the rate of erosion that can carry topsoil dominated by humus. Beyers (2004) noted that the influence of plants against soil erosion was determined by the type of plants. Alwi L. Conserv Biol 18: 947-956. . No. Study of soil physic characteristic and land use in it relation with soil erosion prediction. REFERENCES Alwi L. The study resulted by Edwards et al. the coverage by plant canopy can help offset the effect of rainfall on runoff and erosion. agrosylviculturalmultystrata system and sylvopastoral-multystrata system. Bogor. agrosylvicultural-perennial crops. the plant canopy which is wide and dense can also protect the soil surface from direct rain blows. which in turn increased the ability to pull though the water into the ground. Tall plants usually cause greater erosion because the water retained by the plants can still damage the soil at the time of falling on the surface. 162. Likewise. IPB Press. 2012. WT Frankenberger Jr and LH Stolzy. Zachar (1982 cited by Arsyad 2000) added that the vegetation of grasses and dense shrubs covering the land can impede the process of soil detachment by the kinetic energy of rain or surface runoff. coeficient runoff and erosion far below that caould be tolerated at any level of slope steepness. p. Graduate School. 3. plant density and distribution. Soil microbial population and activity at different landuse types. Study of land use dynamic impact to land erosion and hydrology conditions in wanggu watershed. It was also said that there were two kinds of soil properties that greatly affect the magnitude of soil erosion and surface runoff. Arifin M. In addition. The greater the value of soil erodibility is. Boyle M. the more sensitive is to erosion. 2011. Georg-August-University of Goettingen. Vol. Bogor Agriculture University.299. Third edition. Germany: Universitatsverlag Gottingen. According to Sinukaban (1989). 1989. Base on physical indicators such as soil properties and erosion the agroforestry type of sylvopastoral-multistrata system is feasible to maintain land productivity in supporting sustainable agriculture. Economic and Social Contrains of Land Use and Conservation” 19-23 September. In: D Stictenroth.J Trop Soils. that were. the rate of soil erosion is strongly influenced by the type and density of vegetation. Grass vegetation on the soil surface was not optimal in controlling erosion below TSL. Postfire seeding for erosion control: Effectiveness and impacts on native plant communities. J Prod Agric 2: 290. Arsyad S. T Gultom and S Migge. Information Resources Institut Building. 17. Beyers JL. CONCLUSIONS Agroforestry systems in sub-watershed of Konaweha had four types of agroforestry. 2005. In addition. in agrosylvicultural-p (T2) at the slope steepness of 30% with land cover level by vegetation was relatively open and had relatively similar canopy strata. Water and Soil Conservarion. an important soil property which may be affected by erosion is its sensitivity to erosion known as soil erodibility. N Sinukaban. 2010. Sengon agroforestry land has a high vegetation diversity and density. Soil quality and environment in type sylvopastoral-multistrata system were better than the other types of agroforestry and relatively similar to the forest because it had the lowest surface runoff. According to Arifin (2010). The four types of agroforestry were quite effective in controlling erosion caused by the influence of land cover vegetation which consisted of three plant components that created the twolayered canopy and litter on the ground surface and the grass grows well as soil cover. infiltration capacity and the soil resistance to dispersions. 2004. S Tarigan and A Malik (eds). The influence of organic matter on soil aggregation and water infiltration. J Hidrolitan 2: 74-86. the increasing permeability of the soil can be caused by the incr easing population and activity of soil microorganisms that can form a gap or cavity and stable aggregates. J MAPETA Agr 12: 111-115. 2005. 2012: 275-282 281 slope of 30%. namely: sylvopastoral-perennial crops with pasture. 2000. Darmaga Campus. (1988) stated that the activity of macro-fauna and microorganisms had an important contribution in enhancing the process of soil infiltration. the physical properties of soil that determine infiltration capacity are the soil texture and structure. Effects of plant species on erosion were determined by the canopy and roots while the density and distribution of plants showed the area size of soil surface that was protected from rain blows.

Y Hidayat and G Gerold. Second edition. In: D Stictenroth. Planning for Sustainable Use of Land Resources. 1994. Agrivita 26: 1-8. Cab International in Association with the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. 1-20. Central Sulawesi. Hardjowigeno S. 1990. F Agus. Germany: Universitatsverlag Gottingen. 1988. J Geografi 4: 114-128. Agroforestry for Soil and Water Conservation India Experience. Consequence of rainforest conversion with different land use types for soil erosion and surface runoff in nopu catchment. USDA Agric. Brodbeck F. W Lorenz. 8th International Soil and Water Conservation. 2001. In: KG MacDicken and NT Vergara (eds). Agroforestry for Soil Management. the Netherlands. pp: 31-57.282 S Marwah: Physical Feasibility Study of Agroforestry Farm System Nair PKR. Characterizing macropores that Affect Infiltration into notilled Soil. Agroforestry System in the Tropics. low land and settlement. Agrivita 26: 60-68. the Netherlands. Narain P and SS Grewal. Soil Sci 33: 141-163. Rome. Ltd. p. 1982. 2005. Land Suitability and Land Use Planning. pp. Yogyakarta (in Indonesian). E Suhara. IPB Press. 537. D Suprayogo. Degradation of soil physic properties caused forest land use changes to monoculture coffee system: study of changes of soil macroporocity. Towards a New Approach. Jakarta. Suprayogo D. Berlian. Bogor Sinukaban N. Forest and Biodiversity. D Suprayogo. Georg-August-University of Goettingen. Young A. Agroforestry: Classification and Management. worm and soil macroporocity. Agrivita 26: 75-88. 2007. India. PT. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 127. Economic and Social Contrains of Land Use and Conservation” 19-23 September. 2001. F Rusiana. ZZ Aini. P. 2007. New Delhi. 2003. 2004. 2004. 13-20. FAO. Gadjah Mada University Press. 53-62. Sampara Watershed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. No. Comparison of soil quality in cultivated field and grassland. Traditional forest garden as “safety net” for rural household in Central Sulawesi. RH Widodo and S Rahayu. Land Use changes of forest to be agroforestry of coffee : litter layers. 1989b. Murtilaksono K. Agroforestry Systems. Jakarta Sub Balai RLKT Sampara. Chundawat BS and SK Gautam. Purnomosidi. Indonesia. pp. Van Noordwijk M. K Hairiah. Handbook. Germany. Organic matter and water stable aggregates in soil. World Bank. . Challenges and Opportunities. Sinukaban N 2001. Pvt. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses . 19-23 May 2003. G Pasya. Soil physic properties and soil capability to water absorbs in forest land.1989a. Nairobi. Holmes D. The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods. Classification of Agroforestry System. FAO Land and Water Bulletin. 2002. C Prayogo. Hairiah K. N Khasanah and Z Kusuma. Dehra Dun 248 195. F Hapla and R Mitlöhner. 1997. Nair PKR. Nair PKR. Wischmeier WH and DD Smith. Center Soil and Conservation Research and Training Institute. 1993. Pretice and Policy Strategy. Widianto. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization]. 1978. Indico Duta Utama International Development Consultants to Assosiation with BCEDM. S Tarigan and A Malik (eds). 2005. 1989. Tisdall CM and JM Oades. In: PKR Nair (ed). Bonn. Soil Sci Soc Am 44: 765-771. Handayani IP. Critical Land Management Institut Conservation. Kendari. Land Rehabilitation Pattern and Soil Conservation Sub Watershed of Konaweha. Agroforestry System in the Tropics. Setiowaty DL. Practices and Technologies. LD Norton and CE Redmond. pp. Proceedings International Symposium “The Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins: Linking Ecological. Function of agroforestry defend of watershed hydrology function. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Water and Soil Conservation in Transmigration Area. B Verbist and Farida. Kalimantan and Sulawesi. RH Widodo. J Trop Soils 12: 135-143. 2004. Deforestation in Indonesia: A Review of the Situation in Sumatera. Agroforestry Defined. Edwards WM. A Mardiastuning. Widianto. Kenya. 2005. In: PKR Nair (ed). Textbook of Agroforestry.A Guide to Conservation Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 58 pp. Vol 2.